![Space Space](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/space_64.png)
![Security Security](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/security_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
Hackers Forced Announcement of 10th Planet Find 540
JCY2K writes "According to The Inquirer, hackers gained access to the secure server where the data about the new planet was being held and threatened to reveal it. Evidently the discoverers have been withholding this information from the public since 2003 while they waited for full analysis."
Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:5, Insightful)
Open-source software advocates want information to be free, as do civil liberty groups and other political organizations that fall near the Slashdot line of thinking.
But to say information wants to be free is like saying my computer monitor wants to be plugged into a high-end video card: it may be better for all parties, but in the end, the monitor is just a monitor. Likewise, information is just information.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Information wants to be free because sunshine is the best antiseptic.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it hates it when you do that.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:5, Insightful)
Things don't want to fall to the ground; the ground is merely in the way.
What the statement means to me is that information usually becomes free in the absence of measures taken to prevent it from doing so. I think we can agree that that's true.
No, in the absence of any measures, information ceases to exist. Fail to remember, fail to record it, fail to anything with it and it doesn't exist. It may be true, but information is a concept relative to those holding it as such. This is why 1984 is so relevant to information technology. What people consider to be true or factual is dependent upon information as recorded or held in the minds of others and transmitted to them. 1984 tells you why hackers can be dangerous. Should information not be held in the mind and be changed in some database and it not exist in anyone's mind until it is read after the changes, it is assumed to be right and it becomes "information" at that point.
Information doesn't want to be at all. People insist on it being. The fewer the people with it, the closer it gets to its ephemeral basis of nonexistance, just waiting for some entity to come along and encompass it back into being.
You may now return to not-so-deep end of the
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:4, Insightful)
Nature records information all the time. There will always be information available to any who wish to retrieve it. It will always exist: a single atom of hydrogen at coordinates 5.28E25, 1.92883E18E298, 42 contains information and, some might argue, is information itself. It not only contains the information of where it is, but the information of where it is not. Watch its path and it will tell you what has influenced it in the past.
"Information wants to be free" may not be as accurate as "people generally want to share information and make it available", but sounds a bit more philosophicalisticalish.
Personally, I'm on the information-should-freely-flow side of things. With the exception of anything that requires massive quantities of money and very expensive machines and large collections of disciplined manpower there is nothing that the government can do even half as efficiently as the collective power of tens of millions of people with nothing better to do with their time than plink.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:3, Interesting)
IE, if I annihilated half of the Earth, the Earth would have half as much gravity. This means that the ground plays a role in this process.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:3, Informative)
No, the ground is the surface; it's the stuff under the ground that contributes to the mass. If I dug a hole to the center of the Earth, you would keep falling towards the center of mass even while you're below ground level.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, if we expose people to figures of speech at an early age then we run the risk of raising a generation that can use language effectively. This could be the end of the internet as we know it.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:3, Funny)
"For example, you do not know my Driver's License number. Unless I tell you right now, you will die not knowing it."
D00d, we flipped that database months ago.
PS- That haircut isn't you at all. Experiment!
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Except their own information. That must remain protected.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:4, Interesting)
But that information doesn't want to be used as fodder for extortion.
if the hacker had just made the find publicly available that would have been one thing. but, rather, the hacker choose to use his find to threaten the researchers.
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:3, Funny)
Won't somebody think of the information!?!?!?
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:4, Funny)
Dr. Brown had still hoped to hold back announcements of 2003 UB313 and another large Kuiper Belt object, 2005 FY9, until October, but his hand was tipped by Brian Marsden, director of the Minor Planet Center, who said that he was worried about hanky panky.
Dr. Marsden said that it was possible by looking on the Internet at the logs of one of the telescopes Dr. Brown's team had been using to find out where they had been pointed. He had evidence, he said, that someone had done that and computed crude orbits of the two unannounced planetoids, "presumably" in preparation for their own observations.
perhaps we should call the planet P4w-N3d
sorry, fixed link... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/science/29cnd-p
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2, Funny)
Beer wants to be Free? (Score:2)
The Tenth Planet wants to be free! (Score:2)
Re:Supports the Hacker Creed (Score:2)
Give the guys a chance to get some big glass pointed at the thing, some orbit tracking. For something that far a way, take two plates, two years apart and you're still talking about measuring with a freaken microscope!
Star Trek (Score:5, Funny)
After carefully reviewing your application to join the United Federation of Planets, we have determined that you are inelligible to join. We based this decision on the fact that we would have to re-write one-too many episodes. While we could do this with a time jaunt, we realize our viewers are sick and tired of time skipping ever since it was abused on Enterprise.
Sincerely Yours,
Admiral J.T.K.
P.S. Go to PriceLine where you can name your own price!
A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
while they waited for full analysis
So, waiting for a full analysis is a bad thing now?
Re:A bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, take for example, this quote from Bush in 2003, "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." Now you can't say the average person wouldn't read an implied link between SH and 9/11 there. But, he's safe on the technicality.
Actually, I'm not sure you're correct and that he hasn't slipped up once or twice. Cheney certainly has directly made that link.
Re:A bad thing? (Score:4, Informative)
President Bush:
We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."
Dick Cheney
"If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11,"
Colin Powell
We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at
Also, signed statement to Congress (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A bad thing? (Score:2)
Consider the following:
If geeks fully analylized their winnings from random bar, almost all would never get laid (And have lack of good "Oh MY GOD WHAT DID I DO!!?!?! stories)
Re:A bad thing? (Score:2)
Of course. How can you expect us to mob the scientist with questions you know they can't answer so we can cut their funding if they have done all the needed analyst?
Re:A bad thing? (Score:2)
Conspiracy theorists are convinced that the reason that NASA is holding back data on Deep Impact isn't because they haven't analyzed it yet (science is, of course, a fast process, which is why most PhD's finish grad school in weeks), but because they accidentally killed some aliens on the surface of Tempel 1.
They're also convinced that this is tied into the occult.
So, there you have it. Waiting for full analysis is for good scientists. If you want to be a proper crackpot, you just make up what happene
Yes, a bad thing. (Score:2)
Please, that is so 2002.
Ask the Whitehouse and No. 10 Downing Street.
Re:A bad thing? (Score:3, Informative)
Explained here [caltech.edu]. There's no conspiracy - they didn't discover it until January:
So, did they... (Score:5, Funny)
Security through Obscurity (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Security through Obscurity (Score:2)
Bad typo, that: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad typo, that: (Score:2)
Re:Bad typo, that: (Score:2)
Seriously, why would it have been so bad to wait til October? As has been said elsewhere, withholding this research until thoroughly checked does not put people at risk. It is perfectly safe, and in fact preferred, to make sure that all is OK before publishing.
And this kind of thing is supposed to be published in
Re:Bad typo, that: (Score:2)
Re:Bad typo, that: (Score:2)
And where exactly did this happen in this situation? Nowhere? Exactly.
Yeah, by all means privacy should be dead. Long live the Patriot Act.
WTF does this have to do with the Patriot Act? Or personal privacy, for that matter? He was keeping scientific data under wraps until he could verify it, but this isn't the same as privacy conc
What jerks (Score:2)
This is of course assuming the story isn't bullshit. I seem to remember one scientist saying he had a bet with another that he'd discover a 10th planet by the end of last year.
Re:What jerks (Score:2)
This was found by the same guy. He lost the bet by 10 days. You can read more at Xena Planet X or Big Lump of Rock [theregister.co.uk].
My Horoscope ick FUBAR! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh noes! Hackers! (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, what's even stupider is how both the Independent and, to an even stupider degree, the Inquirer make it sound all ominous and elitist that the scientists didn't release the info as soon as they found it. Like, maybe they didn't want to risk the media flaming them for prematurely announcing a tenth planet if they had to recant part of their data?
Re:Oh noes! Hackers! (Score:5, Informative)
It's on this [caltech.edu] page. But, yeah, it wasn't really hacking, it was just using Google well.
Like, maybe they didn't want to risk the media flaming them for prematurely announcing a tenth planet if they had to recant part of their data?
Also, the computers they use for analysis didn't see it because it moves so slowly. They found it on reanalysis a year and a half after they imaged it. They weren't actually sitting on the discovery for two years - just since January.
What else? (Score:2)
No big deal (Score:2)
I think Pluto is only considered a planet because it was grandfathered into the current (confusing and not entirely adhered to) rules on what is and isn't a planet.
Odds are, this will just be classified as another KBO.
Name One (Score:4, Insightful)
There are 'planetoids' that are bigger than pluto that are considered simple KBO even though some consider them to be planets.
Really, name one.
You cannot, as this is the first KBO discovered that is larger than Pluto.
SteveM
Re:Name One (Score:2)
I do have limited knowledge of astronomy but Could something not be both a KBO and a planet .
Re:Name One (Score:2)
Sorry about that.
Re:No big deal (Score:2)
No there aren't. From here [caltech.edu]:
Witholding information (Score:2)
What The Hack... (Score:2)
Re:"Middle-Finger" Nation (Score:2)
ObJoke (Score:2)
The find should further stuff up modern astrologers - they still have not got the hang of Uranus.
Well, I hadn't noticed their probes yet, I didn't think someone would go the distance to get to know me inside outLet's state this properly (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be the not-so-secure server?
No matter where you go, there you are! (Score:2)
so.. (Score:2)
After Futher Analysis (Score:2)
This new planet will be discovered to be the home of Cold Fusion.
That may be why (Score:2)
Info was not withheld since 2003 (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you Astronomers/Researchers for good science (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you to the hackers who feel that something like this needed to be public without review. If it was 'revealed' and then found to be false, nobody would have remembered some script kiddie illegally, immorally, and unethically published the data before it was reviewed. Everyone would have jumped on the Astronomers/Researchers and science in general like a bunch of ignorant cattle (like they always do) and the true facts would have been buried in the mess.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
That's awesome! (Score:2)
Yay!
...
Oh wait, that sucks.
Someone please tell me (Score:2)
From M-W.com : (Score:2)
Etymology: origin unknown
chiefly British : a scientific expert; especially : one involved in technological research
So it's a prettier word for "geek"
Zecharaiah Sitchin Was Right!!! (Score:2)
Mod TFA Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no hacker (Score:5, Informative)
one year is the customary delay period (Score:2)
Usually the problem is the other way around- people rush to publication. With so many eyes looking out there, a comet or asteroid may be seen by many others before long. Theres even a place to send a "telegram" to give you priority and naming rights. Plus
11th perhaps? (Score:2)
mercury
venus
earth
mars
jupiter
saturn
uranus
neptune
pluto
sedna
planetX
or sedna is not a planet (just like pluto )
What's the actual problem here? (Score:2)
Is there really a problem with not releasing immediately? The linked article is very biased to suggest there is, but it seems like quite a naive attitude to me.
They wanted to know more information first, and it's not exactly a piece of information critical to safety or people's future. It was always their risk that their discovery might have been overshadowed by someon
The Lesson? (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2)
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they should be commended for not rushing out their findings until they had been properly analyzed and validated. The public doesn't track or care about retracted or falsified scientific studies, so to come out with unchecked data would end up confusing most people if the conclusion made based on that data was proven to be incorrect. And it's not like this was some big discovery that was actually going to change the average person's life... they aren't sitting on the cure for cancer or something.
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:2)
I think an announcement of the possibility of a tenth planet, larger than Pluto, would be quite newsworthy, myself. And although I am no astronomer, it occurs to me that the data could have been shared and therefore processed within two years. The discoverers still get primary credit, right? Why sit on this for so long?
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think an announcement of the possibility of a tenth planet, larger than Pluto, would be quite newsworthy,
The press would have reported this using the following headlines:
Astronomer Claims 10th Planet Found
10th Planet Found?
New Planet
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, even if they (or any other researcher) were sitting on a cure for cancer, they would have to analyse and test and be damned sure of the discovery because getting it wrong could a. wreck their careers b. kill people (possibly through unforseen side effects, etc) or c. not work at all.
I've been reading the threads and there seem to be two ca
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:2)
There's a big difference between "withholding information" and "scientific rigor"
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ban them!?! The scientists were clearly planning on releasing their discovery but were forced to do it prematurely. They were abiding by scientific principles.
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:2)
Science needs rigorous review, no matter what. You don't have a right to a fucking thing until it is properly reviewed.
People exactly like you are what leads to the bad public image of science by ignorant non-scientists.
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:2)
Of course they had the right. I don't know how it works for terrestrial based projects, but in space missions, a team wins a contract with NASA to fly an experiment on a spacecraft. The gist of the contract is: We will put your experiment on our spacecraft. We will give you money to operate in and maintain it. In return, you will release all data to the public after a certain period of time (typically 6 months). I imagine the terms are similar in essence, if not in detail, for research done from Eart
Re:The Scientists Had No Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wtf (Score:2)
Re:wtf (Score:2)
And don't forget the actress playing Xena (Lucy Lawless) has the power of flight.
Oh well. (Score:2)
Re:wtf (Score:2)
Ariel, Bellerophon, Londinium, Osiris, Greenleaf, Sunflower, Sihnon, Boros, Beaumonde, Whimsy, Cairo, Trident, Newhall, Hudzen, Lister, Islington, Rune-Ring, Nevada, Gecko, Leon, Persephone, Silverstri, Hera, Wolf, Waterloo, Whitechapel, Athens, Higgens' Moon, Three Hills, Ita, Whitefall, Georgia, Joe's Rock, Anniversary, Ezra, Beylix, Ember, Banyon, Paquin, St. Albans, Avatar, Penal Moon (Dyton Colony), Santo, Gower Moon, Taipei, Knightsbridge, Shadow, Honeymo
Re:Secure (Score:2)
me: wtf IS a boffin?
him: you don't know what a boffin is dawg?
me: nope
him: you kinda suck
him: it's what dumb people call clever people to make up for their own dumbness
him: pretty much a lame insult to clever people
Re:Article quality (Score:2)
Re:Article quality (Score:2)
Re:Full disclosure? (Score:2)
Re:Full disclosure? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you release an announcement before you're finished with your research or due diligence, you expose yourself and your institution to controversy.
When you're making a claim as ostentatious as a discovery o
Re:Full disclosure? (Score:2)
WTF? You sound like a completely ignorant and arrogant baffoon. You need to learn respect kid.
You don't the right to a damn thing before it is fully scientifically reviewed. And you do not have a Ph.D, so your life and career does not ride on completely accurate and fully reviewed scientific discovery and achievement. Therefore, you should only deal with the things you are qualified to speak about and deal with. Your arrogance is unfounded.
Re:Ah The Inquirer... (Score:2)
Re:UFO deniers (Score:2)
Re:As any good scientist should do! (Score:2)
One would imagine that would give a body a rather eccentric orbit. Aren't these bodies in fairly circular ones (even Pluto's orbit is pretty much circular to the naked eye)?